[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You're phrasing the question incorrectly. When debating equalization, the question shouldn't be "Should the federal government transfer money to Quebec?", it should be, "should the federal government transfer money to the less wealthy provinces to pay for the world-class health and education programs Canadians expect?"

Well, really, it's "should the federal government mandate the transfer of money from more wealthy provinces to less", and the use of the funds may factor into the "why". But okay, the onus is still on the proponents to establish why that's the right thing to do.

It's easy for Albertans to bash equalization when the question is framed such that the hard-working citizens of this province are losing out on money that is rightfully theirs to ungrateful, lazy, language-policing Quebeckers. That same argument doesn't work when you debate the merits of equalization payments to non-Quebec provinces, though.

Sure it does. Or more aptly, it's not an argument - it's a request for one. At the outset, the assumption is it's our money - it was produced by resources situated in our territory. We own the resources, we sell them for money. Now explain why we should have to give that money to you. I will listen with an open mind (not without bias, but with an open mind). I don't care who the recipient is. It can either be justified generally or in the case of a particular subset of recipients (i.e. the people of Quebec) or an individual recipient (Bob from Moncton). But it should be justified.

Also, keep in mind that every province (including Alberta) has been a recipient of equalization payments at one time or another. Historically, Ontario had been the only province that had never received equalization, but their fortunes changed a few years ago.

That is a pragmatic argument - i.e., we should pay these payments now, because we may be in a position where we need them in the future and at that point the existence of the system will improve our quality of life. We should maintain the system as insurance in case that happens. I don't know how convincing I find that, personally, but fair enough.